When I was researching the Jim Beam "Signature" 6-grain bourbon, I was told that the next enthusiast-oriented product from them would be from Knob Creek. Since Beam has never done a single barrel product, that sounds about right.

News continues to dribble out through unofficial channels about the release in 2011 of a single barrel version of Beam's Knob Creek bourbon, leading me to suspect that the leaks are actually deliberate and strategic. Be that as it may, here is the latest.

The product will be called Knob Creek Single Barrel Reserve. It will begin to ship in January for retail launch in February. It will still be 9-years-old but will be bottled at a significantly higher proof, 120° (60% alcohol). Of course, the barrels will be individually selected. Suggested retail is $10 above regular Knob, so about $40.

Instead of the paper label of the original the label will be screen-printed ceramic. It will look like this:

Now while we're waiting for Dr. Pavlov to arrive, I'm curious enough to ask a question or two. These are serious questions, so laugh if you want. I personally like the idea of single barrel bottlings for the same reason someone else may dislike them: individual variation across barrels. That said, the producers aren't providing any information to folks about the kind of barrel (how long air dried, rick height, high or low humidity, stave width, heartwood versus sapwood, and maybe a dozen other things). What is there something special about high proof whiskey? I understand maybe not shipping water around the county, but it doesn't seem like the high proof in and of itself is something special in that it makes bourbon better. The historical researchers seem to indicate that the older bourbon from long ago might have been "better" due to lower barrel proof, not higher proof (other factors not included).

So my question comes down to why folks think that a 120 proof single barrel bottling might be seen as better or more desirable than say a 107 proof single barrel or small batch bottling? Or any other proof number for that matter.

delaware_phoenix wrote: What is there something special about high proof whiskey? I understand maybe not shipping water around the county, but it doesn't seem like the high proof in and of itself is something special in that it makes bourbon better. The historical researchers seem to indicate that the older bourbon from long ago might have been "better" due to lower barrel proof, not higher proof (other factors not included).

So my question comes down to why folks think that a 120 proof single barrel bottling might be seen as better or more desirable than say a 107 proof single barrel or small batch bottling? Or any other proof number for that matter.

IMHO barrel proof is where it's at. So much more concentrated flavors (just add water) over the usual stuff. These days I almost exclusively buy the barrel proof stuff. Just more bang for the buck.Joe

dp, you ask some interesting questions, most of which are likely to go unanswered..........at least by the producers. In all honesty, it is not in their interest to reveal to the drinking public what they are doing in any detail. Were I in their place, I would not reveal much about how I was making or aging my whiskey. There is really little to be gained by doing so, and it carries its own risks.............best policy is almost always to answer as little as you can, what you don't say can't be used against you or stolen for other's own too often less than honorable purposes...........relations 'twixt individuals can be and most often are honorable.........relations 'twixt commercial entities much less so.

It is my opinion that the bourbon producers are doing a creditable job these days of selling good and even excellent whiskey. No doubt some bourbons are overpriced, but we are under no obligation to buy them. I certainly do not buy Pappy 23 anymore now that its price is out of site (try $299).

As to Barrel Proof bourbons, my belief (and I have nothing concrete on which to base this belief) is that the producers are selecting some of their best barrels for these products and hence, as others have noted, they are almost always very rich in flavors. Barrel Proof bourbons are selling at premium prices and if they start putting lesser quality bourbon in their products, folks will stop buying them in the quantities they now are because, I submit to you, regular JB White, JD Black, and Evan Williams Black customers do not buy Barrel Proof bourbons. People like Bourbon Joe, gauze, and Mike buy Barrel Proof bourbons........those who enjoy bourbon more than most and know a bit more about it. Those who can take it and make it suit their taste with a bit of water.

Of course I could be wrong about all this, but it seems reasonable to me. Others who are better informed or more astute than I may know reasons as to why offering Barrel Proof bourbons is not in the drinker's interest, or is shortsighted, but not I. I must say though that the higher proof alone plays no part in my finding Barrel Proof bourbons attractive. At this very moment, however, I am drinking William LaRue Weller at 117.9 proof (no water). It is so flavorful and I am sipping so slowly, I am able to handle it, even though I usually add a mite of das vasser. I, for one, offer a market for Barrel Proof bourbons, may they be around a while yet.

Do not go gentle into that good night,Old age should burn and rage at close of day;Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas

Low proof is advised for distilling out and (to a point) barrel entry. This is to preserve enough co-products of fermentation and ensure that once diluted to drinking proof, the whiskey will not taste too bland.

In its finished form (from the matured barrel), the more water you add, the more you dilute the barrel extracts in the whiskey, which often means again a more jejune drink. However, apart from barrel proof being not palatable for many (most?) people, adding water sometimes does bring the whiskey into a more perfect balance. You can't predict these things, it differs for each product and often each bottling. E.g., for Baker's, I wouldn't add any water because it is a particularly light bourbon to begin with.

Also when aging the whiskey if it increases in proof, it has lost water and the flavor components will be somewhat more concentrated. So some addition of water brings it back to where it was originally (not counting the addition of flavor from the oak). Some of the very volatile flavor components may evaporate too, but these might be the lower boiling point alcohols, which would be good to lose.

These is the assumption that the way to get from barrel proof to bottle proof is add water, given that barrel proof tends to be high and the latter low. Since it seems many of the majors are entering a quite high barrel proof (say very near the legal limit, 125 proof) and bottling anywhere from 80 to 100 proof, adding water would seem to thin the spirit out (flavor wise) leading to the view that the 80 and 90 proof whiskies are weaker in flavor, more attuned to common palate accustomed to that gawd-awful stuff called vodka. As an example to reduce 125 proof to 80 proof you need to add 56% of the original volume in water. So instead of 200 bottles from your 8 year old barrel you get about 310 or a little more (assuming 3% loss per annum). From the profit motivation viewpoint, adding water is good.

In Herstein's Chemistry and Technology — Wines and Liquors, it's mentioned in the section on laws that at that time the barrel entry proof was between 80 and 110 proof. This was just post Prohibition. Perhaps it reflects pre-Prohibition practice as well? Now the low proof could simply be reflecting poor conversion in the mash and a low alcohol yield in the ferment. Perhaps it also reflected a deliberate choice for the distillers for some of their product and maybe the way they blended.

But what if instead of just adding just water, you added some 80 proof whiskey to that 110 proof whiskey reach 100 proof whiskey. 110 proof to 100 proof needs only 10% dilution with water, I'd have to go learn how to figure out the reduction using 80 proof whiskey, but you could probably get by with very little water.

Of course, this is much much more expensive than just adding water. And whether it would lead to more flavors, or better ones, is unknown to me. Maybe this kind of thinking would lead Mr. Pepper and Crow to say "Rubbish! Just add good water you fool!" And you don't have to add much water if you use a low barrel entry proof.

Anyway, just some crazy ideas I thought I'd share for whatever they're worth.